Adam Kokesh VS Peter Schiff on Limited Government VS No Government

19 comments:

I'd love a Rothbardian anarchy, but, I'd be happy with a Misesian limited government (defense, courts of law, and police), provided that the right of secession be guaranteed. However, this is all theoretical, since we live in an Orwellian state.

There is no such thing as a limited government. I'm sorry to say that the whole concept is impossible. Since a limited government (defense, courts of law, and police) have a monopoly on the initiation of violence in a given territory, what possibly could limit it? Nothing, as the great American experiment has shown. Sadly.

1. It is too late the wind the proverbial clock back to a time when gov't was less intrusive in our lives.

Aside from the current inescapable financial situation our gov't is in(which leads to my point #2), I find it amazing that anyone who followed Ron Paul this last primary cycle could think that the system would allow such a transition.

2. We don't have to "fight" our gov't, try to use its corrupt inner workings to get a "pro liberty" candidate elected, or anything along those lines.

It will eventually do like all empires do, collapse. That is the point in time at which either enough people have been educated to believe in freedom/voluntary society...or not...in which case some other tyranny form of gov't will pop up in its place.

So in that context...what Ron Paul(and others in the liberty movement) has/is doing is what Jesus did:

“Follow me, and I will make you fishers of men.”

and this is where the battle will be won or lost my friends.

Btw, I love Adam. I hope he stays out of jail more so he can do more videos and commentary.

Though, he quoted one of my responses here in a video of his to a Wenzel write up on Benton wearing body armor and trying to convince RP delegates to go the beach...so I'm probably biaset...lol

Leaders like Ron who lead people towards the ideas of liberty are worthy of support, not in spite of their failure to gain power in a corrupt empire, but because of it.

Those truly seeking political power in the name of liberty deserve suspicion. That said, I'd rather see Rand keep his seat than have some neo-con replace him. But since Rand is not in any sense libertarian, I have little passion about that preference.

Unfortunately voluntarism ignores a key trait of human nature. Certain humans will always try and dominate others. This is why I believe a successful voluntary society will never work; those who seek power over others will cause society to deform.

That being said, why not try it anyway. The results can't very well be worse than what we have today.

What are you trying to say? That in an ancap society, the psychopaths would work their way up the power structures of the defense/insurance agencies? And that once they get to the top, they take over and covert the agencies into governments? That's very possible. However, if an agency abuses its power, the customers will stop paying and switch over to an honest agency to protect them. The honest agency will have more customers, more money, and more support. The only way this would work is if one agency had a monopoly or if the agencies cartelized. What did Rothbard have to say about monopolies and cartels in a free market? It does not last long. But you could claim this case is different, because the rogue agency could use force to prevent new entrants into the market. The rogue agency could also use force to collect taxes to keep financing itself. This, also, is possible as a worst case scenario. What do we end up with, then? The worst case scenario leads us to government. So, at worst, we end up where we started. But who knows? Maybe not. I am willing to give it a shot.

You appear to be ignoring the voluminous research into law in an anarchic society. A voluntary society isn't without law. On the contrary. A great place to start research into the subject would be the volume Anarchy and the Law: The Political Economy of Choice, edited by Edward P. Stringham, New Brunswick: Transaction, 2007.

I'm saying that there are those who will always try and rule others, and unfortunately there will always be those who wish to be ruled. Do you really think that all the ignorant sheeple out there are that way because nobody has spread the message of freedom to them?

I submit to you that the majority of these people choose to be ignorant, choose to be a slave. Because life is definitely simpler when you are an ignorant slave.

The question is not how a voluntary society will work once achieved, the question is how will it be achieved when the majority of people choose to be slaves.

I hope I am wrong. I hope there are enough people who want to be free. Like I said, its worth a shot either way.

I enjoy reading Rothbard but I can't go AnCap. I'm more with Mises and Hayek.

What about Rothbard supporting old-right politicians and the '94 Republican election? It seems that Rothbard was willing to bend.

I also object with Kokesh in his inference that Ron Paul is AnCap. RP has supported quite a few Tea Party types (including his son) and his writings suggest a constitutionalist approach. RP may like Rothbard, but I need more evidence that he is AnCap.

This is excellent. I side with Adam, Ron Paul and Rothbard. We don't want to hold up some compromise as the objective. It's like the abolitionists advocating "limited" slavery. Maybe it doesn't sell at first. But eventually...if the state's failure becomes more evident, there we are with the answer.

nice job nick. it all comes down to if you subscribe to the NAP. if you do, then philosophically, you cannot support govt because they are force by definition. if you dont, then you have work to do.

schiff's economics are top notch, he understands sound money, the business cycle, and the consequences of govt intervention. while kokesh may not be as well read in economics as schiff, he understands these things well enough and his dedication to non aggession is unparalleled. If you watch his videos where police tackle him and arrest him aggressively, he NEVER agresses back, nor ever even shows any tendency to do anything. He tries to show what govt really is when you get down to it. when given the chance, they will not only look to steal, hurt, aggress... but some if not most of them will actually get some kind of pleaseure from it.

What kind of judicial system could the market provide? Disagreements will happen and I don't see how anarchy won't turn into government(s) when disagreements become very large. I think Adam was more convensing in this "debate" but I think Peter's position is more correct and obviously more realistic.

Damn it, Adam, I hope you stay out of jail. You will serve the world better out of jail, spreading the message. Schiff is great on economics, but he is a piker when it comes to libertarian philosophy.

I am trying to convince people to drop the whole "anarchy" label. Instead, I ask minarchists what they feel the essential roles of government are. Usually, I get the "police, defence, courts" answer. Then I start trying to convince them that privatizing the police would be great. I feel that one is the easiest, especially given the recent police abuses. Law is a little harder, but I think demonstrating the superiority of polycentric law should be next. Defense, I feel, is the hardest.

However, convincing someone to believe in privatizing all government services is not the main hurdle. The main hurdle is the fear that no one will be in charge. OMG, who is going to tell us what to do? Most people are still stuck in the bicameral mindset.

Peter sounds so neocon... I'll summarize it like the Spanish Master Huerta de Soto, "The problem classical liberals make is that they failed to realized that once government exists, due to human nature, it would be impossible to stop its power"... Peter is also wrong, the Germanic countries lived in Anarchy for centuries if not more.

Very well said. I like Peter very much, but his whitewashing of the history of American government is embarrassing. Once you go AnCap (or even just read Spooner), it's hard to put American history in a context where the Constitution is a legitimate contract, but we'll suspend disbelief and pretend that it is --- Peter, what about the Whiskey Rebellion? This glorious limited government didn't last two years before violating its "contract." Since I'm assuming he'd probably defend the taxation as legitimate, ok... 1798... Alien & Sedition Acts. Not even a decade. These United States prospered in spite of, not because of, this purveyor of "limited" violence.

I like both Kokesh and Schiff, I think they both do good work in their different areas. I'm not going to pick either of their sides here--explaining my views on this discussion would require a lengthy essay--but I do think Adam is being disingenuous by juxtaposing Ron Paul clips after Peter's points as if to somehow give the impression that RP is completely on Adam's side of this discussion. Ron Paul consistently makes a point to advise following the constitution, which to some self-identifying ancaps may as well be the communist manifesto. It's perfectly legitimate and healthy debate to disagree with RP on his constitutionalist limited-government views, but if you're going to argue for hardcore ancap like Adam is here, you can't play the Ron Paul card.